BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

In what context does "Hillary wants ducks on the ground so she gets ducks on the ground" change that statement, knowing that actual Donald Ducks were
used for that exact purpose. How does anything you can come up with change the context of Creamer saying it came directly from her and there was
conversation of a different campaign but she specifically wanted ducks.

As we have learned for the previous Okeefe videos, editing can change context quite a bit.

I don't get how you can continually defend this wretch of a human being and her cronies that keep getting outed for their participation in a massive
scandal from the top down.

Because it's fun. Right Wingers are easy to debate.

Hell...independent tech analysts (yes more than one) even verified that Brazile outright lied by checking the DKIP email keys and verifying those
emails were hers. They even put their money up for anyone that can successfully pass a fake DKIP email key off as authentic.

The evidence is available including Bob Creamer actually telling us on video that Hillary broke FEC regulations

Give me the unedited version and I will consider it evidence.

I have not seen a single person on this website withold opinions because they don't have all the known facts, including yourself. Nothing wring with
that, either in terms of logic, or discussion.

To speak in absolutes when giving that opinion without all the facts, yes it is illogical.

I have not spoken in absolutes.

Summary:
There is evidence in the video that Hillary Clinton broke FEC rules.
I believe that an investigation should be carried out to determine if she did or not.
Bob Creamer has the means, motive and connections to give some weight to the evidence beyond just a random person saying something.
My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

You have already admitted you can think of no context that would change the meaning of Creamers words. You must therefore believe that he is, as I
said, unknowingly accusing Hillary Clinton of FEC violations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or
mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's
fine.

There is no other way to take his comment, because you and several others here are blinded by hatred of Hillary Clinton.

The only evidence here is in a fraudulent video from a known fraudster. This is evident to anyone who knows anything about the matter. That is not
"opinion" that is a statement of fact based on the statements of the guy who made the videos.

There's nothing here other than something to rile up the far right/alt-right base.

There is no context that will change it, which is why none have been offered. The defence seems to be that he might not have meant it, therefore it
can't be true.

The ONLY context in which his statements are taken out of context is if he outright lied. Trouble is, nobody on their team has denied it and the WH is
avoiding it.

My guess as to the reason for the silence is that they fear if they deny it, another video or email will come out proving they lied.

O'Keeffe seems, like wiki leaks, to be giving them just enough room to hang themselves, waiting for a response of denial to release another
confirmation of lies.

I think he has 3 more videos...
If he was lying it doesn't actually change the context of what he said, only the veracity of it.
I think the idea that he was lying is actually one that I am surprised has not been pushed more. The defence seems to be more about editing and a
previous charge against O'Keefe for trespassing in order to gain his footage.

A liberal activist and organizer coordinated with reporters from the conservative news site Breitbart during the primaries to cover his disruptions
of events for candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio.

Aaron Black, an associate with Democracy Partners and a former Occupy Wall Street organizer, worked with the pro-Trump site Breitbart, tipping it
off about his stunts, exchanging raw video and coordinating coverage, according to a source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Black has resurfaced recently as one of the people featured in undercover video from the Project Veritas group. In the video, he claims to
work for the Democratic National Committee. Though he does not appear on their payroll, his bio at Democracy Partners credits him with "working
closely with the Democratic National Committee" during the 2012 election cycle. Black in the video says he helped organize protests in Chicago
that led to Trump's cancellation of a rally there in March.

According to the source, Black coordinated with Breitbart via email, phone and in person, including when he dressed up as a robot and trolled Marco
Rubio’s events. The relationship was described as very friendly. An article subsequently published on Breitbart featured video footage of a
physical confrontation between Black and Rubio's New Hampshire campaign chairman.

The article goes on to include a statement from Briebart where they acknowledge having close communication with him etc.

There is no other way to take his comment, because you and several others here are blinded by hatred of Hillary Clinton.

The only evidence here is in a fraudulent video from a known fraudster. This is evident to anyone who knows anything about the matter. That is not
"opinion" that is a statement of fact based on the statements of the guy who made the videos.

There's nothing here other than something to rile up the far right/alt-right base.

Or one could say there is nothing here that will rile up the far-left base.

Your portrayal of O'Keefe is unbalanced by the way. He's no saint, but it does smack of a pretty standard political tactic to discredit the source
rather than address the evidence.

Nope, when a source has proven itself time and time again to be disreputable, stating that fact isn't "damning the source." Perfect example would be
quoting The National Enquirer as a reputable source on ... well, anything.

Besides that, Mr. Teapot, you damn sources all the time. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you.

Breitbart have already covered it.
There is no law against a media outlet coordinating with an activist.

Hmmm...When Briebarts Chief Editor is working for Trump...and Briebart covertly worked closely with man disrupting the primaries and even gave him
suggestions?

That man shows up on the Proj. Veritas videos claiming to work for the DNC and being responsible for the violent protests at the Chicago Trump
event?...and despite him claiming on the video he works for the DNC...He appears nowhere on their publicly disclosed payrolls?

Is that helmet on your avatar impenetrable to all logic and unpalatable reality?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.